chronica_save_entry

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses behavioral traits: no confirmation to user, avoid meta-comments, continue naturally. However, it does not describe side effects or idempotency, and it omits explanation of the nested entry structure beyond what schema provides.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is structured with sections and bullets, front-loading the purpose. It is somewhat lengthy but each part adds value. Minor redundancy in bullet points could be tightened, but overall well-organized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and a single nested parameter, the description covers usage well but lacks return value behavior and details on entry structure. It is adequate but could be more complete, especially for a potentially complex tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (the parameter description lists required fields). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool saves an entry (memory/record) with the verb '保存します'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like chronica_create_thread and chronica_search, which have different purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit timing for use: when user gives new info, important decisions, tasks, etc. It lists example phrases that trigger saving and advises to err on the side of saving too much. While it doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives, the guidance is comprehensive and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.